4 min readDelhiJan 12, 2023 12:08 PM IST
First published on: Jan 12, 2023 at 12:08 PM IST
While hearing a chartered accountant’s plea seeking the quashing of proceedings of the internal complaints committee in a sexual harassment case, the Delhi High Court recently held that such proceedings will not be quashed even if the panel fails to complete the inquiry within 90 days as prescribed in law.
A single judge bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan in its January 5 decision held “there was no substance” in the chartered accountant’s contention that if the inquiry proceeding is not concluded within a period of 90 days, the same will be vitiated.
“The petitioner has not pointed out any prejudice caused to him on account of delay. It is not the case of the petitioner that the delay is attributable to respondent no. 3 (complainant). I am prima facie of the view that the complaint of sexual harassment and the inquiry proceeding emanating therefrom cannot be quashed merely for the reasons that the internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to complete the inquiry within the time frame given in Section 11(4) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH)”.
The bench also observe such complaints containing allegations of sexual harassment “deserve to be treated with a certain amount of seriousness and responsibility” and have to be inquired into and “taken to their logical conclusion” in the interest of both the complainant as well as the person against whom the allegations of sexual harassment have been levelled.
The petitioner had sought an interim relief challenging a second sexual harassment complaint filed by the complainant under POSH Act. According to him, the second complaint filed on October 12, 2022, related to the same alleged incident which was already the subject matter of an initial complaint filed on June 3, 2022. He had also challenged the notice received by him regarding the hearing to be conducted on January 6, 2022, in the second complaint.
The CA contended two proceedings for the same incident are not permissible in law. Relying on Section 11(4) of the POSH Act, he argued the inquiry had to be completed within a period of 90 days and that in his case the period had lapsed from the date of the first complaint of June 3, 2022, hence the entire proceedings of the ICC are vitiated.
However, the high court bench noted the contents of the two complaints were identical and about the same incident. “Prima facie, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the inquiry which has been initiated by the Internal Complaints Committee is in fact, with regard to the complaint dated 03.06.2022 and the hearing already held on 23.09.2022, and the one proposed to be held on 06.01.2023, are part of the same inquiry. There is no question of the petitioner being subjected to two separate enquiries,” it said.
The court observed the ICC hearing held on September 23, 2022, was a preliminary one in which the efforts for conciliation were possibly made by it in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Thereafter, a second hearing was fixed on January 6, 2022, which is “part of the same inquiry proceeding which have been initiated pursuant” to the June 3, 2022, complaint, the court noted. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India had contended the complainant had initially sent her complaint through email on June 3, 2022, and she submitted hard copies of the same complaint to ICC on October 12, 2022, which is a requirement under the POSH Act.
Rejecting the CA’s prayer for interim relief for quashing the proceedings, the high court noted that in the backdrop of the given case the provisions of Section 11(4) of the POSH Act “cannot be said to be mandatory”.
The bench also observed that such complaints containing allegations of sexual harassment "deserve to be treated with a certain amount of seriousness and responsibility" ..." (Express Photo/File) 
Share
